Discussions about Carico's God

[spidergoat]

..."Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.

You are incorrect. People use supernatural or metaphysical terms to explain their observations. These things would not be important at all if they didn't have a percieved effect on the physical world. If there is any effect on the physical world at all, this phenomenon can be studied by science.

Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent.

There is a small amount of interpretation involved in reconstructing fossils, but much less when the fossil fragments are all found to be adjacent in their rock matrix. In other words, they are not bits and pieces from scattered sources, but found as a mass together in the right places. People don't believe scientists on the basis of their personal credentials, but on the basis of the work itself, which in order to be accepted, must be independently verified. Questioning the methods of science is as much a part of science as observation itself.

All fossils are transitional. All animals are transitional. Skeletons that have the characteristics of both apes and humans have been found. This is reality. You are free to live in a fantasy world where none of this happened but that would also make you delusional.

 

[Saquist]

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.

I'll have to ask the same question as Walker.
What proof do we have of this?
Using the Chrisitian Greek Scriptures and the Hebrew Aramaic Scriptures

Does the Bible support this conclusion?
1.We know Jesus never claimed to be God.
2.The Hebrews didn't believe it was possible to see God and yet live.
3.Jesus Identified himself as "The Son of God."
4.Colosians refer to Jesus as "The First Born or All Creation"
5.God is described as existing from "Time indefinite (undefined) to Time indefinite"
6. God's name "He who causes to become" vs. Jesus "God is Salvation"

Reasoning:
A. If the scriptures say God is infinite and Jesus was dead for 3 days then this would be a contradiction in orthodoxy.

B. John 1:1 seems to uphold GOD equals Jesus in english, yet on closer inspection the original language makes a distinction between God and a god. * Included under "god" is Jesus, Satan, and the myriad of false gods"

C. Another Hebrew Scripture refering Jesus calls him mighty god but the Aramiac refers to this as a lesser god not to mention God is propperly refered to as Almighty

D. The same scripture applies the Title of Eternal Father. Keeping in mind this is prophecy, refering to one that is to come and his mission :dying for sins and replacing Adam as the Father of Mankind.

There are many scriptures giving a seperate view of God and Jesus and yet three circumstantial scriptures refering to them being One, or Titles being similar.

 

[swarm]

spidergoat People use supernatural or metaphysical terms to explain their observations.

People do all manner of whack shit, but you are not paying attention to what I said. First of all, supernatural and metaphysical have very distinct meanings.

supernatural 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

metaphysics
1. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.


Second what I said was: ""Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed."

I did not say people never misuse those terms or make absurd claims.

There is no way for science to explain by natural laws that which is inexplicable by natural laws nor can it answer questions unanswerable by science. It is particularly difficult when the set of those things offered forth seems null.

But even in the realm of nature there are things outside science's scope. Science requires observation, measurement and replication. What cannot be observed or measured or cannot be replicated cannot be studied scientifically.

 

[spidergoat]

You are still incorrect. Science can determine if something is not explainable by natural laws, which opens the way for a supernatural explanation. Experiments can be set up to test for telekinesis, telepathy, ghosts, séances, and the like.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I suppose a lot of the militant attitude comes from atheists who have had others attempt to force religion upon them in their lives. I don't like the very bitter attitude in some atheists either but I believe I can see where and how it came about.

*************
M*W: I don't have anyone else to blame for my indoctrination. I did it to myself, because I was searching for something greater than myself. That's different than being bitter because of someone else. When I finally came to understand the futility of religion that I imposed upon myself and my family, I was relieved as if the greatest burden of my life had been removed.

People always seek to blame something on others. That's the easy way to reconcile any degree of negativity or oppression. If people would take responsibility for their actions, the bitterness wouldn't be a problem.

 

[lightgigantic]

spidergoat Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.

Sort of, but let me help clarify.

Science as a discipline strives not to be biased for or against anything, though science is done by people and people have difficulty getting past their bias.

All science cares about is can it be observed? can it be measured? can questions be proposed about it that can be disproved? can these be shared, replicated and verified publicly? That's it at the core.

"Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.

it gets interesting when you examine the metaphysical premises that under-ride empiricism - eg "the universe is ordered/constant" etc etc

 

[swarm]

lightgigantic it gets interesting when you examine the metaphysical premises that under-ride empiricism - eg "the universe is ordered/constant" etc etc

It depends on where you stand. My understanding is that reality is itself the final "noumena" and metaphysics is just a bunch of phenomenal artifacts which find reality essentially impenetrable.

Scientific empiricism is not a rational endeavor (for those freaking at this point I mean it is not a priori or before the fact, i.e. its basis is not a thought object like an assumption) and it is not based on an assumption.

It is an empirical endeavor (i.e. a posteriori or after the fact) and is thus based on observation. Yes it employs rational tools after that and those are base on assumptions, but they are also refinable and discardable as needed because it is fundamentally the observation and not the tool which is the basis of scientific understanding.

Measurement, reason and verification are how understanding is derived from that basis.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Absurd blathering.

I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.

Everything else is speculation and opinion.


peace.

 

[swarm]

EmptyForceOfChi I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.

You are abusing the concept of "possibility of existence" but lets consider the matter.

What can or cannot "possibly exist?"

Can you show that god is not categorically impossible? Like a round square? It would seem that most supernatural claims about god's nature would make him categorically impossible.

Can you show that god is at all a physical possibility to begin with?

One of the difficulties with either of these is because there is no god you don't have any actual information to come good conclusions with. All you have is the most vapid speculation and wishful thinking.

So no, as it currently stands there is no possibility that god exists.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

EmptyForceOfChi I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.

You are abusing the concept of "possibility of existence" but lets consider the matter.

What can or cannot "possibly exist?"

Can you show that god is not categorically impossible? Like a round square? It would seem that most supernatural claims about god's nature would make him categorically impossible.

Can you show that god is at all a physical possibility to begin with?

One of the difficulties with either of these is because there is no god you don't have any actual information to come good conclusions with. All you have is the most vapid speculation and wishful thinking.

So no, as it currently stands there is no possibility that god exists.

That is incorrect,

There is a possibility that a conscious energy form created the universe. you tried very well to twist in your personal opinion to back it up and sell it as logic.

you cannot just say "there is no possibility that god exists"

How would you suggest I show you god is a physicl possibility?, how about the fact that it is possible that some type of immortal conscious energy created this universe and we are like a glorified computer simulation.

Do you understand what the word possible means?, I would like you to present any kind of scientific data that proves a conscious god that created the universe is impossible. You do not have such data at your desposal because none exists that proves god is an impossibility.


This is the kind of wierd behaviour I was talkign about when people get there personal opinions mixed up with facts.


peace.


peace.

 

[swarm]

EmptyForceOfChi There is a possibility that a conscious energy form created the universe.

You are now shifting your claim, but lets see if this new claim is reasonable.

First the only "conscious energy forms" we currently have any evidence of are the ones involved with various animal bodies here on earth. None of them show any aptitude at creating matter, energy, space or time, though some few of them are getting ok at manipulating small amounts of the same. In fact, it is held that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also, just the visible universe consists of about 100,000,000,000 galaxies each with about 100,000,000,000 stars. To get a vague notion of scale watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/v/bov9M2gEgcE&hl=en&fs=1

Now exactly how do "conscious energy forms" go about creating universes?

No. Just because you can string words together, that doesn't mean that they are possible. In fact just because at first glance they seem intelligible, that doesn't mean they actually are.

EmptyForceOfChi you cannot just say "there is no possibility that god exists"

Actually I can and I have shown why my position is justified.

EmptyForceOfChi How would you suggest I show you god is a physicl possibility?

The absolute best way and only way which is absolutely conclusive to prove god exists is to produce an actual god and let me see him. It just the same as the way you would prove anything physically exists. Showing god is a physical possibility first you need to establish that you know the first thing about real gods, direct first hand experience collaborated by others would be nice. Then you establish that none of gods necessary properties preclude physical existence.

It is obvious you need a refresher on the word possible:
possible 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

EmptyForceOfChi how about the fact that it is possible that some type of immortal conscious energy created this universe and we are like a glorified computer simulation.

Look just stringing words together doesn't make what you think they mean possible.

EmptyForceOfChi I would like you to present any kind of scientific data that proves a conscious god that created the universe is impossible. You do not have such data at your desposal because none exists that proves god is an impossibility.

First you provide me with a meaningful object to investigate. I know these words make you feel good, but as you are presenting them, the have no meaning. How would you distinguish a conscious god from an unconscious god? A living god from a dead god? You throw that word around but have not the least clue what a god is. God could bite you on the nose and you'ld be clueless.

What ever "gods" might or might not exist and whatever their capabilities or characteristics might be, you don't know. You don't know what they might or might not have done either.

But I do know what you are presenting is not possible. Your claims are without merit, unsupportable and can be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.

If they are valid and not simply a dream taking place in the dying mind, it says everything about God.That's what NDEs are all about..not an afterlife that has no God.

Many NDE experiencers report nothing about gods or religion. All the others report extremely little from the experience concerning religion & it's always related to the religion they previously believed. Buddhists saw Buddha, Moslems saw Allah, Christians saw Jesus. Many saw a bright light or something they called god or Jesus or whatever but which was not identifiable. Some return with an inexplicable urge to study science. Usually they are told by the beings there that we are here in this life to learn but are never told to learn about religion or gods.
The experiences so far indicate religion, gods & even morality to be of little or no concern in the other life or at least during the transition.

 

[Carico]

Energy

Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.

But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain. We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

Please clarify your reasoning.
It seems to me that you are saying:
x has property a.
y also has property a.
x has property b.
y also has property b.
therefore x = y.

This is not necessarily so, for example:
Dogs and Lions are both mammals.
Dogs and Lions are both quadrupeds (has 4 legs).
Dogs and Lions are both social animals.
Dogs and Lions are both predators.
But they are clearly difference animals.

 

[(Q)]

Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal.

Perhaps, but after many more billions of years, all of the energy in the universe will have been converted and spread out over such vast regions of expansion as to become literally insignificant. Would your god then too become insignificant?

God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.

Energy may be invisible, but it is detectable, hence it exists. It is the invisible and undetectable that is indistinguishable from the non-existent, like your god, for example.

But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain.

Wouldn't it be better if god disappeared, so then his presence in regards to evil, hate and things we can't explain would also disappear? The other traits, altruism, love and understanding are naturally attainable through evolution.

Would it help if We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:

Simple, energy is detectable, gods are not. If you wish to follow such a line of reasoning, why not do away with the concept of energy and just call it God?

We might have to change a few formulas to reflect this new idea, for example, "Potential God" is converted to "Kinetic God."

There may be a few problems with this idea. I saw someone cursing a car battery that wouldn't turn over the engine, not enough God in the battery. Do you think if he prayed to the battery, God might start the engine?

 

[NGM]

Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. >...So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God?

Carico, you're using circular logic; "I believe that one equals three so if one has three of anything, then they agree with me."

I'm sorry, but your argument in this thread has so many flaws in it that it just isn't worth discussing.

I would like to ask you again, why you haven't answered the questions I posed to you in the evolution thread that you started?

Please return to that thread and answer me. I was civil, polite, non-threatening and used no cursing. It's only fair of you to reply.

Thank you,

Nat.

 

[Carico]

Please clarify your reasoning.
It seems to me that you are saying:
x has property a.
y also has property a.
x has property b.
y also has property b.
therefore x = y.

This is not necessarily so, for example:
Dogs and Lions are both mammals.
Dogs and Lions are both quadrupeds (has 4 legs).
Dogs and Lions are both social animals.
Dogs and Lions are both predators.
But they are clearly difference animals.

Scientists acknowledge an invisible eternal force. So why do they deny God, especially when they can't explain the miracle of life? A miracle is an unexplained event. And scientists have never come up with a timeless explanation for the existence of life that doesn't contradict some aspect of reality.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.

But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain. We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:

*************
M*W: Then call it for what it is--energy. No need to give it another identity.

 

[Carico]

*************
M*W: Then call it for what it is--energy. No need to give it another identity.

Why not call it God? The answer is easy, because then man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that. So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does.

 

[NGM]

Why not call it God? The answer is easy, because then man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that. So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does.

You've got it backwards, Carico. None of the thousands of supposed gods have ever existed. No proof what-so-ever exists that they have. Nothing but fairy tales handed down by fanatics throughout history. No evidence exists that any god at all has ever existed. All you're doing is parroting the same illogical fantasies that you were taught as a child to believe in.

Just as with the tooth fairy and Santy Claus, you need to mature and give up those fantasies. Unless you're just not strong enough to stand on your own without the help of a crutch called god, that supports you in your weakness.

I've been watching you babble your nonsense here for awhile now. It's time for you to answer some real questions like I've asked you in the "Evolution" thread.

Or is it that you have no answers. Perhaps it's just that you come here to repeat unfounded fantasy and religious dogma like a good little parrot of the church.

Which is it man? Can you defend your beliefs or are you just full of nonsense?